Nobel Laureates Letter Supports GMOs

To the Leaders of Greenpeace, the United Nations and Governments around the world. The United Nations Food & Agriculture Program has noted that global production of food, feed and fiber will need approximately to double by 2050 to meet the demands of a growing global population. Organizations opposed to modern plant breeding, with Greenpeace at their lead, have repeatedly denied these facts and opposed biotechnological innovations in agriculture. They have misrepresented their risks, benefits, and impacts, and supported the criminal destruction of approved field trials and research projects. 
http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/nobel-laureate-gmo-letter_rjr.html 

Yvette d’Entremont – 'BS Detection and the Fall of the Food Babe'

Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire

     Well maybe.  The American Chestnut Project is a genetically modified organism (GMO) and a few Luddites were prefer the project not proceed, because of a knee-jerk negative reaction to anything GMO, even though bioscience has found the procedure perfectly safe.
     For 25 years, William Powell and Charles Maynard at the College of Environmental Science and Forestry in Syracuse, New York have been using genetic engineering methods to try to revive the American chestnut tree. The tree was once populous from Maine to Georgia, consisting of as much as 25 percent of the forest and providing food and lumber. In early 1900s, an Asian fungus began and continues to kill billions of trees.
     In early December, the activist group called “The Campaign To Stop GE Trees” called on consumers to shut the project down, saying the transgenic trees are “unnecessary, undesirable,” and “unpredictable”.

“Horizontal gene transfer between unrelated species is not unnatural. It does happen in nature and is an important force in genetic diversity and evolution. But instead of happening randomly, genetic engineering allows some thought to be put in behind this natural process.”

http://www.popsci.com/node/223261/?cmpid=enews010115&spPodID=020&spMailingID=7391699&spJobID=600072789&spReportId=NjAwMDcyNzg5S0

Policy Riders in Budget Bill Block Enviro Actions

A lot of 11th-hour mandates in the $1 Trillion Budget Bill will affect environmental policy. The EPA got its smallest budget since 1989 - $60 million less than last year's $8.1 Billion. The NIH kept its current budget and received increases in funds for Alzheimer’s and Ebola research. DARPA received a 3.4% increase. And NASA received $500 million more than it initially requested.

The Bill include policy riders that
1) The EPA cannot use funds to
    - Require farmers to report greenhouse gas emissions from “manure management systems,” although agriculture is a major source of atmospheric methane.
    - Regulate farm ponds and irrigation ditches under the Clean Water Act.
    - Require farmers to obtain permits for gas emissions from cow belches and farts, which the EPA says is a major source of methane.
2) Obama may not honor his pledge to give $3 billion to the UN Green Climate Fund.
3) USDA must speed up permits for companies developing GMOs, like disease-resistant rice and soybeans.
4) ​U.S.’s export credit agency must reverse a previous ban on building overseas coal-fired power plants and loan construction funds to companies.
5) DOE cannot develop and enforce new standards for more energy-efficient lightbulbs.
6) DOT cannot fund most of its current light-rail projects.​​

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-congress-snuck-changes-to-u-s-environmental-policy-into-the-new-budget-bill/?WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20141217

AAAS Board Says GMO No Less Safe Than Conventional Mods

. . Foods containing ingredients from genetically modified (GM) crops pose no greater risk than the same foods made from crops modified by conventional plant breeding techniques, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Board of Directors has concluded. Legally mandating labels on GM foods could therefore “mislead and falsely alarm consumers,” the Board said in a statement approved 20 October.
. . In releasing the Board’s statement, AAAS noted that it is important to distinguish between labeling intended to protect public health—about the presence of allergens, for example—and optional labeling that aids consumer decision-making, such as “kosher” or “USDA organic,” which reflects verifiable and certifiable standards about production and handling.
. . Several current efforts to require labeling of GM foods are not being driven by any credible scientific evidence that these foods are dangerous, AAAS said. Rather, GM labeling initiatives are being advanced by “the persistent perception that such foods are somehow ‘unnatural,’” as well as efforts to gain competitive advantages within the marketplace, and the false belief that GM crops are untested.
. .In the United States, in fact, each new GM crop must be subjected to rigorous analysis and testing in order to receive regulatory approval, AAAS noted. It must be shown to be the same as the parent crop from which it was derived and if a new protein trait has been added, the protein must be shown to be neither toxic nor allergenic. “As a result and contrary to popular misconceptions,” AAAS reported, “GM crops are the most extensively tested crops ever.”
http://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-board-directors-legally-mandating-gm-food-labels-could-%E2%80%9Cmislead-and-falsely-alarm 

Want More Information on GMO from Peer-Reviewed Articles

. . The goal of GENERA is to provide an all-in-one place where scientific literature about agricultural biotechnology can be found and understood at-a-glance and be readily accessible to the public. Regarding the risks associate with this technology there is extensive scientific literature.
. . Scientists and students at academic institutions have access to peer-reviewed journals around the world. However, most people do not have free access to these journals, and the research papers are often difficult to understand.
. . Many websites may discuss these issues in way that is easy to understand, but lack accuracy, independence, and sufficient scope.
. . GENetic Engineering Risk Atlas (GENERA) provides a searchable database of peer-reviewed research on the risks of genetically engineered crops. Below are answers to FAQs about GENERA:

• Why create GENERA?
• Who is GENERA for?
• What studies are in GENERA?
• How will GENERA be built?
• Who financially supports GENERA?
• How can I cite GENERA?
• For more information

Genetically Modified Scare Stories

. .  It seems some people thrive on scare or often are quick to accept pseudo-science to the exclusion of real science.  One of the latest scares is that of genetically modified food.  What they fail to realize is humans have been genetically modifying food for centuries.  For example, the corn we eat today bares no resemblance its initial natural form as teosinte.   It has been highly domesticate over millennia at the hands of humans in a far less targeted and controlled manner that is being done today. Furthermore, it is claimed that nearly 90% of all corn is genetically modified. (Click here)
. . Virtually all our food has been domesticated and a good reference as to studies can be found at Assessment of the food safety issues related to genetically modified foods.
. . Jon Entine, senior research fellow at the Center for Health & Risk Communication at George Mason University^[1] and the founder and director of the Genetic Literacy Project states

"We've eaten about 7 trillion meals in the 18 years since GMOs first came on the market. There's not one documented instance of someone getting so much as a sniffle."

A popular GMO product is the red grapefruit (click here for more info)

The 1929 Ruby Red patent came after the discovery of a red grapefruit growing on a pink variety. Using radiation to trigger mutations, new varieties were developed to retain the red tones which typically faded to pink, The Rio Red is a mutation bred variety which was developed by treatment of bud sticks with thermal neutrons. 

We are not suggesting that caution and proper testing is not required.  We are suggesting the current level of hysteria about GMO is not justified.